A parking garage and shelter on 108th street could be demolished under a proposal for new affordable housing and shelter buildings on the block.
By Jessica Brockington
Over 160 residents of Manhattan Valley crowded into a meeting room on Wednesday night to learn more about the city’s plans to demolish builldings holding 92 shelter beds and 675 parking spots on West 108th Street between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues, and build instead 110 shelter beds and 268 units of affordable, senior and supportive housing.
The car owners came out in force, loudly opposing the plan as it was presented to Community Board 7’s Land Use Committee.
The project involves Valley Lodge, a facility at 149 West 108th street with 92 transitional beds for people over 50, which is owned and managed by West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing, and three municipal parking garages owned by HPD.
In the plan, Valley Lodge and the two city garages immediately adjacent would be demolished and rebuilt as one super-structure with a total of 110 transitional beds, 78 affordable housing units, and 115 units of supported living. WSFSSH is looking for a zoning variance to build as high as 11 stories. A model of the plan (with new buildings in white) is below.
The third garage, currently on the other side of the Anabel Aviles playground, would be razed to create 75 units of affordable senior apartments as Phase 2.
Jessica Katz, Assistant Commissioner of Special Needs Housing for HPD, was on hand and discussed the economics of the project.
“Since our founding, we have been selling vacant land to NGO’s for $1 despite the appraised value. It’s part of our mission,” she told the crowd.
In addition there is a very real cost savings to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, she said. “In NYC we see $10,000 per person per year in cost savings by building these [units] and having someone live here rather than effectively doing nothing and having people in emergency situations.”
“It’s the right thing to do but it’s also cheaper.”
In lengthy public speaking sessions, not all the neighbors agreed. Opponents held signs like the one at right.
Raul Quiros, an area resident involved in neighborhood spaces, told the crowd, “I go to and from work at any god given hour. I don’t have the luxury to spend 30 minutes on the street looking for parking. This plan shows no consideration for the working class neighborhood that is already there.”
John Moscow, a lawyer and resident of the area since 1948, agreed. “We can’t get rid of 675 cars without a plan. People drive in to St. Luke’s Hospital and need to park. We need a balance of service.”
Others expressed their support for WSFSSH.
“I live on 106th between West End Avenue and Riverside Drive,” said Jim Little. “I’m here in full and complete support for WSFSSH. For my generation, the post-WWII generation, we need affordable housing and I’m happy to support that in my neighborhood. Check out the environment of Red Oak [a facility owned by WSFSSH on West 106th Street]. “
Julia Herzog agreed. “I completely concur. I’ve lived here 25 years. I’ve walked my dog by here 6,000 times to go to Central Park. And I have a car,” she said. “We cannot privilege cars over housing.”
“A lot of things throughout the neighborhood are taller. These garages are an eyesore,” she said. “Parking is not a right. Housing is a right.”
Also being displaced are the Central Park Medical Unit, an ambulance corps of over 150 volunteers. According to Rafael Castellanos, it’s president, CPMU has been keeping their ambulances in the municipal garages for the last 10 years.
Lots of people wondered why parking couldn’t be built below the housing development.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates was commissioned to study the parking. Zabe Bent, a principal with the firm, told everyone it would cost up to $17 million to dig two levels of parking under the buildings and would yield only 118 spaces. Recouping the cost of the underground parking would reportedly cost each car owner between $1,400 and $2,000 per month for spots that are currently subsidized by the city.
The current contractor of the city garages was at the meeting and told the Land Use Committee his firm was interested in paying for parking to be built under the structures.
People wondered what were the next steps and where they would have opportunities to impact the project.
According to Richard Asche, co-chair of CB7 Land Use Committee, the next step is the ULURP process that will probably come up several months from now, and that the CB’s role is purely advisory.
But he stressed to HPD and WSFSSH, “We still need crucial information. The garage operator needs to be involved. We need a home found for CPMU.”
“We also need to know how many people use their cars to go to work? How many just on weekends? This is all important information to us and it should be for you.”
Photos by Jessica Brockington. Top photo via Google Streetview.
I thought there was a height limit on the spaces next to the playground. I had read six stories? Now it looks like 11? What’s the deal?
Wow, I have no words…cars are more important than people having housing? I get it, I have a car in the city, and it is a pain to park. I get it, but having a car is really optional in the city. It is. I don’t want to hear about the 2% who need to drive in from Jersey; most of us can successfully use public transport to get to this location. Affordable housing however, is a social issue. Are we seriously going to complain about the homeless, and the short-shrifting of seniors and those with mental health needs until it actually involves us putting some skin in the game? Are we really willing to refuse 276 units of housing for people in need so I can park my car indoors? That is crazy. And just so you know, I parked my car at that garage for years until we moved lower down Broadway; I wouldn’t have thought twice about being kicked out for housing.
Really, there is such a thing as “affordable parking”? This is New York City, if you want “affordable parking”, take your entitled self to the burbs.
There are always reasons not to change the existing status. In this case I’d suggest those who feel housing their car, for whatever reason, is more important than housing a senior citizen should look to the past and be happy with the great subsidized (by the rest of us) privilege you’ve enjoyed and now move to a more generous view for the future.
I knew this would turn into a car-owners vs fair housing contest! I don’t understand why both couldn’t be accommodated. In a good plan, they would. And the vitriolic comments against cars which permeate the comment section on a regular basis are getting increasingly old and ugly.
Despite some people’s blindness and intolerance of car-owners and their belief that NO ONE in the City needs a car, the truth is quite different. Try reverse-commuting. Try arriving for work in The Bronx at 4AM. Try having multiple clients throughout The City. Without going into too much detail, removing affordable parking would create huge problems for many working people I know who ABSOLUTELY MUST have a car in order to work. Yet, people need to live somewhere they can afford as well.
The basic fact is that normal “Joes” who work, who don’t have oodles of money, and who are being pushed out of NYC entirely need to be taken into account realistically and quickly if Manhattan Valley is not to become the next “we can’t afford to live anymore in the neighborhood we always have” slice of NYC. We need BOTH affordable housing AND parking spaces – – – – the elderly, the poor, the homeless, and the working class car-owner ALL have needs and rights. What about all the empty lots scattered throughout :Manhattan Valley and Bloomingdale – – for instance the lot on the corner of 100th and Amsterdam that will NEVER be built on because the air rights were transferred to the Extell towers around the corner? So it just sits there growing weeds and the people who lived in the buildings demolished for the towers are….. where???
Clearly housing outranks parking – but it strikes me as unlikely that it really does have to be either-or. It seems more likely to me (especially with the parking operator there saying he wants to look into financing the parking part of the building) that someone decided that the parking people were not as important and therefore not worthy of consideration at all. I don’t approve of that approach, if indeed it is the case. HIgher priorities should be addressed before lower ones – but lower ones should also be addressed if possible.
It is easy to mock people who worry about parking, particularly those that come in from out of town, but there is no practical alternative for those who drive with their equipment. Many of those people are just getting by, much like some of the people who wind up in housing crises. I would also note that some of this outrage at the people who are worried about losing parking sounds a lot like the reasoning we see so often these days – “This doesn’t matter to me, so it doesn’t matter at all.” That is not productive or humane.
Furthermore, there are a number of urban planners who advocate that underground or built-in parking should be considered as a mandatory or semi-mandatory element of every building built in a city where parking is an issue. Apparently, some astounding percentage of the people driving around at any given time are just looking for parking spaces. I saw the study years ago, but my recollection was that it was a very surprising statistic. So, providing sufficient parking to avoid that type of usefess traffic not only facilitates transportation for those who can’t use public transport because of the need to transport equipment, physical disability, time of travel issues (I.e., not wanting to take the bus back to NJ at 2 am for safety reasons), and those who simply won’t take public transport no matter what – it also substantially reduces air pollution, petroleum usage, traffic problems, and pedestrian and driver casualties. As a result, planning for parking, while perhaps not a human right, may be necessary to maintain a humane city.
In other words – yes, housing comes first, but parking is also important and if I were in charge, I would want to make darned sure that there is no way to preserve at least a substantial proportion of the existing parking capacity in the nearby vicinity before settling on my approach to this project. If the parking operator’s interest has not been explored, it should be before this goes forward. I would rather let the building be another floor taller too, if necessary to make it work.
question:
“Recouping the cost of the underground parking would reportedly cost each car owner between $1,400 and $2,000 per month for spots that are currently subsidized by the city”
How are these spots currently subsidized? If they are tied into rent stabilized apartments, shouldn’t they be ‘protected”. I am curious if anyone knows how this works
The thing is though, if the price for parking is set below market rate, demand increases.
Usually I hear this in the context for setting rates for parking that’s on-street, but the goal is usually to set rates to achieve 85% occupancy. That way drivers are spared having to circle, plus the public earns back a fair rate on privately used space in the public realm.
The UWS is populated in large part by tens of thousands of people who could not afford to live here if they had to buy or rent in today. These are people who, if displaced, would also need “affordable” housing.
Many have cars. Some just for leisure, some of necessity, but cars are a quality of life consideration nonetheless. The 675 spots here don’t just affect the people renting those spots, it affects the people using other, nearby garages (rates will go up), and it affects people who park on the street.
There’s no reason why HPD cannot make room for underground garages in the buildings under consideration.
Don’t waste your time fightn’ this one. This too is being pushed by City Hall (CH). Similar to the Amsterdam reconfiguration, the hearings are being conducted as a courtesy to CB7 (more for show). Lets pick our battles wisely.
Something coming down the pipeline, which would have a greater impact to all. CH is looking for housing space, and there are plenty of school play yards/lots in the city. They are only used 10 months of the year and never in inclement weather. Some are used by staff (custodian/principle) for parking conveniences. Plan would be to close streets for a period of 2-3 hours to offer ‘play time’ instead. That’s a battle we should prepare for.
How about a compromise? Let car owners keep their cars in a the garages in exchange for letting seniors and the homeless sleep in them while parked. Win-win!
Seriously, how anyone can say parking cars is more important than providing a home for seniors and the homeless is beyond me.
I totally support affordable housing over a parking spot (which we are about to lose in one of those garages) but why can’t they just put our parking spots (which we’d still pay for) back underneath the buildings they build? Our previous garage on 96th was demolished for a building which hardly qualifies as housing which we can afford, btw., although I do understand that this is (hopefully) not to be the case here. This time, anyway…Being upper west siders for literally decades, we are barely hanging on as it is. We are the last to want to pit people who need homes (we get it!!) against people who need garages, but again, it seems like a continuation of the inexorable decline of working class anything existing in this neighborhood. We remember well when many didn’t even want to walk back and forth from these garages in the dark, and we all carried what was known as ‘mugger money’ in those scary days, vigilantly releplenished by our mothers when necessary, sigh. We are sad to lose yet another vestige of what is starting to feel like quicksand around here, and we are reminded of it every day seeing the incredible disparity of family income displayed on our walk to & from school. Must it always boil down to neighbor vs neighbor every single time we lose garages, supermarkets, mom&pop stores, etc? No, of course I don’t miss the old crime and grime, and of course I want my children to enjoy whatever services that other people’s children enjoy (who doesn’t?), but it is getting harder and harder to define any sense of community in our neighborhood to our children, and in turn to ourselves. Diversity shouldn’t have to mean divisiveness. I hope that the housing which will be built will truly be affordable, and that those who truly deserve it will receive it, but I still don’t see why it had to be one or the other. Many years ago (15? not sure- could have been pre the Ariel East & West monstrosities) we attended a meeting at Ascension (107th) where we got an illustrated handout which consisted of all of the so-called ‘soft spots’ which were ripe for development; they were mostly but not all 1-story structures in this area. Every single location on that map as of now has been totally built up, and also totally unaffordable to anyone who makes twice what we do…and we are fortunate compared to many! At that meeting it was explained to us that this was all essentially pushed through some time in the 80’s, when nobody was really paying attention, and it was easy to do. We were paying attention in the 80’s, and before that, but a similar feeling of helplessness is still with us today as far as this neighborhood. I believe the frustration and yes, even the heartbreak, does not come from fearing change and refusing to bend, but rather from a general unsettling of spirit over the seeming disrespectfulness of it all. I have decided that the divide is pretty much defined by those of us who feel a practically physical pain looking at ‘old’ neighborhood things such as the travesty of the current state of the Metro Theater, for instance, and those who do not. I wish there was a way to unite those very different mindsets. For anyone who is interested, I have been recently emailed by another longtime UWSider, something about new zoning in the works, which allows (I believe) taller new construction than previously allowed, up & down Broadway bet 96th & 110th streets, which I was very surprised to learn is apparently being supported (!) by Mr. Levine & Ms. Rosenthal. Yet another example…To leave you all on a more cheerful note, I am almost done with Lyla Blake Ward’s sweet and lovely new book, Broadway, Schrafft’s, and Seeded Rye, and it has turned out to be a great antidote (depending on how one thinks about it) to all of this OTHER. I highly recommend it, esp for those who may not be as familiar to the area. Thank you for reading.
Thank you @Bruce for providing the best compromise we can hope to reach.
are these parking spaces subsidized somehow? why is everyone talking about preserving them for working class residents? we all know having a car here is a luxury, as spaces are $500+ per month. in new condos, they can sell for upwards of a million.
Needs to include parking, period. People driving around forever looking for parking increases traffic congestion and pollution. You can hope all you want, but car are not going away, we must accommodate them – it is ultimately a quality of life issue. Some people need cars and we could use less road rage and honking, and far less pollution from cars driving in circles looking for a parking space.
The issue here is not about building affordable housing, but how publicly owned land will be reallocated and used. This land has been deemed necessary to meet the goals set by city administration’s agenda for constructing affordable housing. Acquired by eminent domain, the garages have served the community for over 60 years as a community resource in the place of municipal parking which is only provided on the streets as free or metered parking spaces.
The garages are a necessary part of the neighborhood infrastructure as are hospitals, schools, firehouses, police stations, parks and libraries. Daily, the police department and board of education use large parts of the neighborhood as subsidized transient parking. The residents of NYCHA housing also benefit from subsidized resident parking, some of which make a profit from renting their parking spaces to others.
For over forty years and doing a better job than the City, WSFSSH already has over 500 units of specialized affordable housing units in the community. Most residents will never be able to move in to any of the facilities due to the long waiting lists and income requirements. The need for middle class affordable housing is not being addressed. On the other hand publicly funded NYCHA in the area is an absolute disaster and very few are making any effort to point this out.
Middle class residents of the neighborhood are key contributors to the health of the community. They support local businesses and institutions financially. Their parking is being targeted because they are too wealthy and not considered important as voters.
I can’t help but state the glaringly obvious but why does housing have to be “affordable” in one of the priciest neighborhoods in the country?
If these people are truly destitute they should be housed in “affordable” units in areas that are much cheaper than the UWS, i.e. The Bronx or Staten Island.
I don’t see how people can demand the right to live in a neighborhood they simply can’t afford.
further, it is an incredible luxury to have your parking space within walking distance to your apartment.
go to this map: there is tons of parking available. you might just have to take the subway a few stops to get there.
https://www.parkwhiz.com/search/?monthly=1&destination=New+York+City
housing is WAY more important
this is excellent excellent news that this move is even in the works/being considered! This is Manhattan, folks. Subsidized parking? When housing is desperately needed? If you want to own a car – go live in an area conducive to that or pony up and pay for a garage at full market rate in this area. People are so ridiculously entitled it’s sickening – and it’s a disease spread from the wealthy to the poor in this city.
So easy to invent all of these falsehoods … “take your entitled self to the burbs” … “cars are for the privileged” … “having a car is really optional in the city” … “privilege you’ve enjoyed and now move to a more generous view for the future”.
Such a timesaver compared to having to actually think about and acknowledge that other people may have needs and obligations that don’t fit your view of what we should need.
Please try getting to a job in the city carrying more gear with you than you can carry down the stairs of the 110th St. station or that can fit in a cab. Please try doing errands with your elderly parent who lives in a part of Queens barely served by mass transit. Please try taking them to doctor appointments out of the boroughs.
I get it. For many posters to this site housing trumps all. No point even trying to argue it. But please spare us the righteous indignation. Because we all have our cherished amenities, the loss of any of which leads us to wail about the decline and fall of Upper Western civilization. For some people it is the loss of a laundromat, or a shoe repair shop. For others it is the loss of a convenience that makes important parts of our lives workable.
Well, developing ‘affordable housing’ in an ‘unaffordable’ neighborhood – BRILLIANT!
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/zip-code/new_york/new_york/10025
Our cost of living indices are based on a US average of 100. An amount below 100 means New York (zip 10025), New York is cheaper than the US average. A cost of living index above 100 means New York (zip 10025), New York is more expensive.
Overall, New York (zip 10025), New York cost of living is 227.90.
i think that’s why it’s called a “variance.”
I can’t afford to live in the West Village, so I don’t. If you can’t afford the UWS, live elsewhere. Society is required to ensure you may live wherever you want, and pay less than everyone else who sacrifices to live there. So sick of the entitlement mentality.
My understanding is that the 100th and Amsterdam lot is owned by St Michael’s and that air rights still exist, albeit not to build a huge high rise. St Michael’s is still hoping to develop there (although their new landmark designation may gum up those works). But your point is well taken. Why not turn some of the many half-empty parking lots in the West 100s, in and around the housing developments, and either put those spaces into a new lottery, or build parking garages? Or how about new parking garage(s) mandated underneath these new buildings?
The loss of 600+ parking spaces is ridiculous! Not only will it add tremendous congestion, but will likely push up the parking rates in other garages in the area. Many people who own cars – including the poor and middle class – need them for work outside of Manhattan and will suffer greatly as a result. This project should only go through if the spaces can be replaced, even if it’s at market rate.
Exactly. As I said above, so many of these comments basically say, “It doesn’t matter to me, so it doesn’t matter.”
It actually does affect everyone when there is not enough parking, for the reasons noted above.
And it even affects lower income and middle class people, and people who are disabled.
It is an old trick to pit people with legitimate aims against each other to avoid addressing anyone’s legitimate needs. Don’t fall for it. Find a way to address both needs. Again, why no parking under the building?
My comment was a reply to someone else’s comment – but the nesting didn’t work. Not that important, but maybe the issue needs to be looked at again
The city is targeting our neighborhood for this project as City Hall views our Community board as weak with a lack of leadership! Supportive housing (as city defined) is for homeless clients with mental and substance abuse problems. Is this what we want in our area ?? This is NOT primarily for hard working, regular families. The community needs to come out and oppose this. In Sunset Park, 400 residences showed up to oppose the same proposal – and the city gave up. Now targeting the “weak community” of UWS. This is the real evolution of this area to come if the city has its way.
The city is targeting our neighborhood for this project because City Hall views our Community board as weak with a lack of leadership! Supportive housing (as city defined) is for homeless clients with mental and substance abuse problems. Is this what we want in our area ?? This is NOT primarily for hard working, regular families. The community needs to come out and oppose this. In Sunset Park, 400 residences showed up to oppose the same proposal – and the city gave up. Now targeting the “weak community” of UWS. This is the real evolution of this area to come if the city has its way.
NYC is on the same earthquake fault as Charleston. Charleston was wrecked by
a quake in 1886.
During the Northridge Quake (Los Angeles) in
1994, brick buildings and those with underground parking or parking on the bottom levels suffered the most damage.
Is this a factor in this current dispute?
I see newly built condos with parking
at least on the ground level.
I don’t think the city cares about quality of life issues around housing projects.
There goes any sunlight on the playground.
the parking spots are not subsidized at these garages: this was cast out to the audience, however it is not a fact. The parking spaces are within a normal market range, however they are at the lower end.
You people with your cars and dogs….you really might want to rethink city life.
It’s not for everybody.
And all these seniors?? I know where there is some great affordable housing…in Florida.
These folks have subsidized parking? Where do I sign up?
Seriously, I think these folks have used up their entitlements. Build the 118 parking spots and no subsidies. Parking is not a right.
The garages are on land owned by the city leased to the operators of the facilities. There are no facts or information as to the agreements that point to conclusions that the parking is publicly subsidized or are getting any discounts as a result. The City may be collecting the amount in rent in lieu of taxes. No one is asking the right questions. Right now all we have is rumors and speculations. The current spin implies some unfair benefit is being gained is probably completely untrue. Many want this to be so. Before making conclusions, the public needs to see the financials of this transaction to understand what is actually happening.
Subsidized parking, rent, student loans, health insurance, etc, etc, etc.
where does it all end. All laudable and humanitarian goals…but where is the accountability. At least Bloomberg was metric based, forcing the recipients to prove positive results.
Unlike the current local and national regimes that use tax payer money as a slush fund to enrich lobbyists, donors, supporters… regardless if the money is actually helping the folks its supposed to.
Please excuse my bigoted, misogynist,xenophobic and greedy rant.
@Monk #35
Can you provide your complete list of people to be excluded from NYC? In this one Comment you list:
people with cars should be excluded
people with dogs should be excluded
older people should be excluded.
Have you designed a Removal Plan for these designated groups? I did notice that you had Florida in mind.
I had no idea those parking garages were subsidized.. and who gets to use them? Ridiculous that parking should come before Senior Citizen housing.
They can easily build one or two story parking parking in the school yard across the street, and raise the school recreation area to the the top level. win-win.
NYC issues.org is right. No one is asking the right questions. This is about DeBlasio finding a place to house all the homeless with mental issues and substance abuse problems. Supportive, rather than affordable housing, means their “clients” need special care, medical and social services – all paid with our tax dollars.
Long term plan is 15,000 supportive housing vs 5,000 affordable all within the next 10 years. This will drastically impact quality of life and crime in the upper W 90’s- W100’s. Arguing about the loss of parking, is a losing PR battle and not a strategic one. Does not play well on the press. Rising quality of life issues/crime associated with homeless issues is what we should be arguing against. CH does not want that in the press.
The developers should be all over this plan since property values will be driven down with increased petty crime.
At the meeting’s conclusion,a sense of the meeting was called by the chair, Mr Asche. Since it may not be recorded in minutes, i’m adding this addendum to your excellent article: in favor of this project as presented,I counted 4 or 5;OPPOSED were in excess of 100 hands raised.
If you can afford a car in NYC then you do not need affordable parking. We do just fine using public transportation. Please move upstate and you can park in your driveway for free.
Thank you for letting us know the most important outcome — how the people in the neighborhood who attended the meeting really feel. That vote is important and I’m sure won’t be in the minutes. And to all those who keep saying that the parking garages are subsidized — they are not.
Barbara, hopefully your voices will be heard louder than ours here in the West 90s and low 100s. CB7 and CM Rosenthal seem determined to turn our neighborhood into an area of homeless shelters and supportive housing, and it has adversely affected every aspect of our quality of life. Perhaps you’ll have better luck.
@John, Your narrow view is nasty and more than a little bit insulting. That your life and everything you need to do in it fits easily down the staircase of a subway station, that your life has no one in it that you need to be with who is not reachable by a bus is almost as sad as your intolerance of the needs of your neighbors.
I have lived in New York all of my life, taken the subways since I was 8-years old, and as I got older I also drove when needed to earn a living and care for loved ones.
You write, “If you can afford a car in NYC then you do not need affordable parking. We do just fine using public transportation.” I don’t know who you think the “we” you are part of is made up of, but it ain’t Upper West siders. You clearly know zero about what choices people will or need to make, or what things they might forego to be able to afford a vehicle that they need. Just because you don’t need/want a car or can’t/won’t find a way to afford one means absolutely nothing to those who do and can.
Living in this city for almost sixty years has taught me a lot about tolerance so dare I say that it might be you who needs to “move upstate and you can park” your lack of civility there, as you clearly have learned nothing about living amongst people whose lives don’t meet with your narrow approval. You may not own anything with a tailpipe, but your attitude still stinks up the neighborhood.
Thank you. I have a car in HRF on west 108th street. I have a business in cape may county that I drive to. The only way I can get there is to take a bus to atlantic city and then a bus to wildwood but then what? I didn’t ask for this job, I inherited it when my father passed away. I have had half of my family pass away since then, I am here alone. Sometimes I have to go on the spur of the moment. Sometimes I have to stay longer than I need to.
One night not too long ago, my mother called me at 2am, on a saturday night. My step father had died of a heart attack in her arms. I called the garage and had my car in ten minutes. Ten minutes. And within 2 hours I was with my mother. Thankfully I had such close proximity to my vehicle. And it is a vehicle – it’s a vehicle that keeps my life moving.
This was not the first time I needed my car in an emergency. HRF Operating Corp. treat me like a human being, since the first day I began being a client to this very day. They were helpful and gracious to me when I broke my foot and my mom was getting the car to get me around. They care about the people that park there, they really do.
So park on the street. Sob stories for a garage…
This city needs to reduce automobiles because of its pro stance on Bicycles by reducing parking garages it forces the residents to move their autos elsewhere. And to the haters ever hear of an airport?
And please do not blame Trump for this blame the liberal socialist policy’s of the Democratic party for your lack of parking.
Are these comments for real? The parking spaces are priced at half the market rate, according to the Nelson Nygard study. How are people claiming that this use of 108th Street is not subsidized?
Can we agree that if you need a car to do your job, the cost of storing it ought to be rolled into your cost of doing business? There are seniors who the city has to tell, the wait list for age-appropriate senior housing will not clear in your lifetime. That’s awful. It’s great that HPD and WSFSSH are working to create good homes in a desirable neighborhood.
That’s all I’m gonna say, because I keep writing out other comments and deleting them! Would be great to hear how we can support WSFSSH on this creation of good homes.